Click here to skip navigation Home  |  Subject Index  |  Important Links  |  Contact Us  |  Help

U.S. Office of Personnel Management - Ensuring the Federal Government has an effective civilian workforce

Advanced Search

  • FSIP Index Page
  • Agreement
  • Alternative Work Schedule
  • Adverse Actions
  • Appeals
  • Appropriate Arrangements
  • Classification
  • Dress Code
  • Equal Employment Opportunity
  • Facilities
  • Financial Disclosure Requirements
  • Fringe Benefits
  • Health and Safety
  • Leave
  • Management Rights
  • Official Time
  • Performance
  • Procedures
  • Recruitment
  • Reduction in Force
  • Smoking
  • Telework
  • Training
  • Uniforms
  • Union Rights
  • Work Schedule
  • Appendix: Listing of FSIP decisions by case number



    Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Washington, D.C. and National Border Patrol Council, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Case No. 01 FSIP 81, August 9, 2001 (Release No. 442).

    The UNION proposed that "‘[a]ll matters relating to the canine unit will be placed in the document entitled U.S. Border Patrol Canine Unit Policy and Procedures,' which, like an MOU, is a negotiated agreement signed by the parties."

    The AGENCY proposed that certain sections of the parties agreement be placed in a separate document.

    The PANEL ordered the parties to adopt the UNION's proposal.

    To top of page


    Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Washington, D.C. and Local No. 12, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Case Nos. 01 FSIP 3, 13, and 14, December 26, 2001 (Release No. 445).

    The UNION proposed the following:

    Either party may reopen this Memorandum of Understanding to bargain the size of workstations, within 30 calendar days of the decision, if Arbitrator Hockenberry interprets the controlling CBA to require bargaining over the size of workstations in the grievance invoked to arbitration on August 9, 2001 (L12-ARB-01015 and DOL ARB # OASAM-01-29).

    The AGENCY believed the Panel should decline jurisdiction and did not offer a counterproposal.

    The PANEL ordered the parties to adopt the UNION's proposal.

    To top of page